Re: Why do I need more time with partition table?

hi al,

On Jul 25, 2012, at 10:40 AM, AI Rumman <rummandba(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Thanks. I missed to add the trigger.
> Now I added it, but still without partition taking less time compared to with partition query.
>
> With partition :-
>
> explain analyze
> select *
> from table1 as c
> inner join table2 as a on c.crmid = a.activityid and deleted = 0
> where module ='Leads'
> ;
>
> QUERY PLAN
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hash Join (cost=25669.79..86440.88 rows=288058 width=367) (actual time=4411.734..4411.734 rows=0 loops=1)
> Hash Cond: (a.activityid = c.crmid)
> -> Seq Scan on table2 a (cost=0.00..18337.34 rows=681434 width=139) (actual time=0.264..1336.555 rows=681434 loops=1)
> -> Hash (cost=13207.07..13207.07 rows=288058 width=228) (actual time=1457.495..1457.495 rows=287365 loops=1)
> Buckets: 1024 Batches: 128 Memory Usage: 226kB
> -> Append (cost=0.00..13207.07 rows=288058 width=228) (actual time=0.014..1000.182 rows=287365 loops=1)
> -> Seq Scan on table1 c (cost=0.00..0.00 rows=1 width=367) (actual time=0.001..0.001 rows=0 loops=1)
> Filter: ((deleted = 0) AND ((module)::text = 'Leads'::text))
> -> Seq Scan on table1_leads c (cost=0.00..13207.07 rows=288057 width=228) (actual time=0.010..490.169 rows=287365 loops=1)
> Filter: ((deleted = 0) AND ((module)::text = 'Leads'::text))
> Total runtime: 4412.534 ms
> (11 rows)

did you have analyze'd your tables? try if indexing column deleted on table1_leads gives you some more speed.

regards, jan